Chamber and committees

Our next petition, PE1975, which was lodged by Roger Mullin, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, which have the unfortunate acronym of SLAPPs.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 18 January, when the committee agreed to write to the Scottish Law Commission, the Law Society of Scotland, the National Union of Journalists, the Scottish Newspaper Society and the Scottish Government.

The Scottish Law Commission has confirmed that it does not have any current work in its programme of law reform that is relevant to the petition.

The Minister for Community Safety’s written submission noted that, although defamation is not the only type of proceeding that is used for this purpose, it

“is the most common route to silence or intimidate.”

The submission details enhanced legal protections that have been brought about by the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021, particularly the ability for unfounded proceedings to be dismissed at an early procedural hearing in relevant circumstances.

The Law Society of Scotland points out that, between 2013 and 2021, when the threshold to bring defamation action was lower in Scotland than it was in England and Wales, there was not a significant increase in the number of cases brought in Scotland. It highlights work that is being undertaken by the Council of Europe to develop a draft recommendation on SLAPPs, with the working group concluding its work by December 2023.

The National Union of Journalists states that threats of legal action often act as an effective deterrent and go unreported, which means that the true scale of the issue “cannot easily be captured.” The NUJ argues that the statutory definition of SLAPPs must be broad in order to cover the wide range of tactics deployed.

The anti-SLAPP research hub’s written submission points to the UK Government’s consultation, which observed that protection through a serious harm test or public interest defence in defamation cases comes too late in proceedings to deter abusive litigation.

The petitioner’s written submission describes the Scottish Government’s response as “complacent” and states that

“SLAPPs cannot be judged solely on the basis of those cases that come to court.”

His most recent submission highlights some of the on-going work that is being done to increase engagement on the call for Scottish anti-SLAPP legislation.

After that rather extended summary, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We can see whether SPICe can undertake that work. I would also like us, if we can find the information, to establish whether there is any clinical evidence on the consequences of vaping. Clearly, ASH is wholly funded by the Scottish Government, so it will not disagree with the Scottish Government’s proposals. It is not that I wish to—well, I suppose that I do, but I would just like something that is a little bit independent of ASH as we try to identify something factual on these matters, instead of our just getting information from lobby organisations wholly funded by Government.

Our final new petition is PE2038, which has been lodged by Ehlers-Danlos Support UK and asks that suitable NHS services be commissioned for people with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, or HEDS, and hypermobility spectrum disorders, or HSD.

The SPICe briefing explains that Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are a group of rare inherited conditions that affect connective tissues in the body and that there are different types of EDS, including hypermobile EDS. The briefing also outlines other hypermobility spectrum disorders and notes that guidance on and guidelines for managing EDS have not been straightforward, due to some views that the evidence base is insufficient and varied opinions on the best way of managing the conditions.

The Scottish Government has outlined that diagnosis and patient care are provided by local and regional rheumatology services with the input of other specialities. Its submission highlights the Scottish rare disease action plan and states that the actions in the plan will address issues around the lack of signposting, referral pathways and overall care co-ordination, including for those living with HEDS and hypermobility spectrum disorders. The petitioner’s written submission disputes the categorisation of HEDS and HSD as rare, stating low diagnosis of the issue and saying that four out of five people to whom it has spoken have not been diagnosed.

The submission also refers to a bid made in 2018 by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist centre that was supported by consultants, therapists and patients but not by the Scottish Society for Rheumatology. The petitioner highlights concern about access to services through rheumatology, stating its understanding that rheumatologists have been directed not to see people with non-inflammatory conditions.

In light of the submissions that we have received in addition to that from the petitioning organisation, do colleagues have any suggestions for action? If not, I suggest that we write to the national services division to ask whether it remains committed to producing a paper highlighting the issues and service gaps that people with EDS and HSD encounter; why the proposal in 2018 by Professor Stuart Ralston for a specialist EDS centre was rejected; and whether it has monitored the delivery of its commitment to encourage regional expertise and services in place of a specialist centre. We might also write to the Government to ask how it intends to engage with people with HEDS and HSD in taking forward actions under the rare disease action plan, either individually or through Ehlers-Danlos Support UK.

Are members content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

Is that a metaphor that you recognise more generally, minister?

On which note, I will suspend the meeting briefly. Thank you very much.

Good morning, and welcome to the 14th meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. We have apologies from our colleague David Torrance, the deputy convener. His substitute, Marie McNair, joins us online. Good morning, Marie, and all those following our proceedings.

Under agenda item 1 we must decide whether to take in private agenda item 6, which relates to our public participation inquiry report, in which we recommended the establishment of two further people’s panels this parliamentary session. The committee has a role in choosing the topics for the panels and item 6 allows us to consider a recommendation from the Parliament’s participation and communities team on the topic for the first panel. It also allows us to consider the topic in the context of the chamber debate on our report, which will take place on 26 October. This morning, I facilitated a Scottish Parliament information centre business breakfast about the committee’s report, so there is quite a lot of interest in and engagement on it. Are members content to take item 6 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

We have a packed gallery for the excitement of our consideration of petitions in due course, but we have two evidence sessions to take immediately. The first, unusually for the committee, is on pre-budget scrutiny. We usually resist that opportunity, on the basis that the committee does not have the same involvement in the budget as do other committees.

We welcome George Adam, the Minister for Parliamentary Business. The minister is supported online by Doreen Grove, head of open government, and by Amy Watson, principal research officer, both at the Scottish Government. Good morning to both of you. I assume, minister, that if you want your colleagues to come in, I can leave it you to invite them to contribute to our thinking. I understand that you would like to make a brief opening statement, which would be helpful. I think that you probably understand the narrow focus of our interest in relation to the budget. Over to you.

Yes. I am happy to write to the cross-party group. We might also write to the armed forces personnel and veterans health joint group, which is a separate body, seeking similar information.

PE2034, on stopping the current proposals for highly protected marine areas in Scotland, has been lodged by Stuart Chirnside and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to halt its current proposals for highly protected marine areas and to bring forward new proposals that take account of sustainable fishing methods.

Events have slightly overtaken the petition, as we know. It was lodged on 20 June, and as members will be aware, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Net Zero and Just Transition gave a statement to Parliament on 29 June, confirming that the Scottish Government would not be progressing with the proposals. As noted in both the SPICe briefing and the Scottish Government response, the cabinet secretary has committed to providing the Parliament with an update on the Government’s next steps on the issue.

Thank you very much, minister. Yes, we eventually got the Scottish Government’s response to its own inquiry. We certainly exchanged calendar dates for some time about when that might be coming and, eventually, it did.

I will sum it up in short and outline the concern that underpins my question. The committee has now completed its report on deliberative democracy in consequence of the extensive inquiry that we held. The Parliament asked the committee to lead on that inquiry at the start of this parliamentary session, following the recommendation from Ken Macintosh’s Commission on Parliamentary Reform in the previous session that we look into that area. As a committee, we have been on a journey, but our report is enthusiastic about the opportunities that are presented, which are in two forms: what the Government can do and what the Parliament can do. The Parliament will debate our report in the chamber at the end of the month and we very much hope that the parliamentary aspect can be taken forward.

The Government’s response appears to accept the emerging use of citizens panels and their value and probably even the lessons learned from the experience of the Scottish Government model. Ultimately, however, the response is that “There is nae money.” I accept that, and we think that it will probably cost about £1 million a pop to hold a meaningful citizens panel on the model that we have seen in other national Parliaments.

In the first instance, I want to understand whether there has been a diminution of enthusiasm for the concept of the citizens panel as a result of the Scottish Government’s experience to date. Is money being used as a lever to suggest that the panels do not have quite the role that the Government had thought, or is it still very much the Scottish Government’s intention to find a way and a means, at some point, of embracing the concept of citizens panels as an embedded process in Scottish public life? If that is the case, is there an idea in your mind or in the Government’s mind about whether that is likely to happen in this parliamentary session, or will it most likely be in a subsequent session?